HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommentsFrom:Yorks, Patricia E
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Comments RE:2815 Casco Point Road
Date:Sunday, September 18, 2022 6:17:12 PM
Hi Melanie:
I am submitting some input on the many requests the new owner of 2815 Casco Point Road have submitted. We
have been residents on Casco Point Road for over 53 years. We have seen many iterations of remodeling and
building new. My career of real estate has also allowed me many experiences through my clients, who have
wanted to remodel, build or whatever. My experience is that most Orono residents have worked very diligently to
abide by city codes. I think it is human nature that many people think their circumstances are unique and special
and therefore they need to be given special permission to go outside the city codes and regulations.
It appears that the new owner of 2815 Casco Point Road wants special consideration and be an exception in
almost every direction. With all these requests, it appears that perhaps, they should have purchased a different
home to begin with. Most Buyers go to the city prior to purchasing, to talk with the planning staff to see what is
possible and then make their plans accordingly. They design their home to meet setbacks, and codes. In addition,
the neighbors in this neighborhood for the most part have discussed their plans personally with each other and
perhaps not always concluding in agreement, but certainly have thought about the other neighbors considerations
and the impact on them prior to going to city planning and asking for approval at the city. It appears most of the
neighbors in this targeted area have been quite upset by the new owners of 2815 thinking that for the most they
are an exception to the city codes and rules we have all abided by for years. Their plans look lovely, I express
concern that in viewing the plans very little consideration has been given to codes and to neighbors’ concerns.
Our personal example:
1. We wanted to rebuild our home. We wanted to add on various rooms to the house but those plans did not
fit with the 75’ lake setback, or the side setbacks so we had Stubbs moving lift the home up and move it
backwards and to the side so that we could do our desired plan with the square footage needed and abide
by city codes.
2. We have never been able to have an attached garage, because of the city’s hardcover restriction.
3. We have never been able to have a deck in the middle of our incline to enjoy the lake because of the 0
hardcover allowed in the 75’ zone from the 929’ lake elelvation.
4. We have no place to sit at our lakeshore due to our steep incline like 2815 has, because we are not allowed
a deck or any sitting area at the edge of the lake because of hardcover.
5. We struggle each year as the dock guys try to find enough room to store our dock and lift each winter.
6. The house to the West was built in the mid 1940’s and is built 30” from our property line and in addition,
we have huge trees in our setback area, this does not afford us to have any machinery come to our lakeside
yard to trim trees, to install or repair a retaining wall on our steep incline to the lake. We have to ask
permission from our neighbor to the east to have machinery come across his yard to access ours.
These are just a few of the compromises we have had to live with and I know our immediate neighbors live with
similar compromises as we all try to abide by
the city, LMCD, DNR , Minnehaha Watershed codes to keep the greatest resource we all enjoy, Lake Minnetonka
healthy and vibrant. We have put our selfish desires aside to enjoy the wonderful quality of life the lake brings us.
If the city has decided that the powers that make the rules for our codes have changed, we are totally in, we
would love to have better access to the lake, an attached garage, a deck in the middle of our 45 degree incline
next to the lake and a sitting area at the lake.
Patty Yorks
Patty Yorks | 952.334.3333 | PYorks@cbburnet.com | www.theyorksrealestate.com
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid
to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party
to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.
To the City of Orono,
As the owner of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road, I am writing you in regards to
the application for variances proposed for the adjacent property at 2815 Casco Point Road. I
have spoken with the new owner of the subject property, Lisa Thostenson, who sent me some
dimensionless drawings of the building plans. At that time, I expressed support for removing the
old two-car garage located next to the street.
Upon further investigation into the specifics of the application for variances, I have a concern
with the requested Hardcover variance relative to the average setback from the lake. Stormwater
management is particularly important for us and for our area neighbors located on a 25-foot-high
bluff overlooking Lake Minnetonka. I have found that the deeper soil structure here in this area
contains layers of clay. The clay reduces the speed at which stormwater can diffuse down
through the soil and away from the surface. This leads to flooding of our basements and more
importantly, has likely contributed to several catastrophic landslides of our bluff over the last 35
years. These slides destroy structures, docks and boats located near the shoreline as they
permanently reshape the bluff.
The requested hardcover variance is of particular concern because the proposed property
modifications increase the hardcover located toward the bluff. The planned outdoor living space
located along the lakeside edge of the house is only 60 feet back from the bluff. It would tend to
focus more stormwater toward the bluff and toward my property, which is at a lower elevation.
The extent of this focusing effect would be specific to the particular design of this outdoor living
space, which is not completely clear in the drawings I have viewed.
The elevation contours in the land survey indicate no attempt to prevent stormwater from
flowing into my property. In fact, the survey indicates the intention to remove the “Wood
Landscape Border” at the southeast edge between our properties. These railroad ties currently
form a retaining wall that channels stormwater to a drain located at that corner where the water is
piped down to the shoreline.
I would request that the outdoor living space design, as well as the yard elevation contours be
modified in such a way as to minimize the potential for any added stormwater to flow toward the
bluff or onto my property.
I would appreciate your consideration of this concern.
Wesley C. Byrne
Owner of 2817 Casco Point Road
From:Margaret Martin
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Requested setback and hardcover variance 2815 Casco pt rd
Date:Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:28:34 AM
Good morning,
I am a nearby neighbor at 2821 Casco. I do hope to attend the meeting this coming Monday… but am voicing
concern particularly on the request for variance for hard cover on the proposed remodel project. History has shown
potential issues with water run off and significant damage to property that can occur. In The last few years…
several lake properties have had lakeside landscaping structures fail….costly to the health of the lake and the
owners.
As well, my property and others are “downhill” from the proposed project at 2815… and likely recipients of
excessive run off if hardcover variances continue to be granted.
It appears the neighborhood will have many “projects” coming down the pike with turnover of properties…I hope
the planning commission and home owners can be mindful of the land use rules that are in place in the lake
communities.
Margaret martin… 2821 Casco
Sent from my iPad
From:Margaret Martin
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Re: Requested setback and hardcover variance 2815 Casco pt rd
Date:Friday, September 16, 2022 8:15:55 AM
Good morning Melanie,
Happy Friday..
Know you wanted comments earlier, but I just spoke with a friend who is a civil engineer.. geo-tech.. and offered
additional questions/ concerns re 2815 proposal.. thought it important to share “ more professional verbiage” for my
same concern. He questioned: how are the home owners addressing stormwater concerns associated with the
increased footprint and reduced setback….as this directly affects all properties downslope.
We also hear comments from Casco neighbors…living throughout the neighborhood questioning the change in the
look of the neighborhood…. Feeling high density… over building that is being allowed. Help us all understand
why variances are now continually allowed? Hardcover and set back rules.. guidelines….were put into place to
protect the look and feel of the neighborhood as well as the health of the lake and neighbors properties. Seems
current mantra is to approve these overbuilding requests.
Appreciate you work in keeping everything organized!!
Will attend on Monday
M
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 12, 2022, at 7:28 AM, Margaret Martin <marg2821@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Good morning,
> I am a nearby neighbor at 2821 Casco. I do hope to attend the meeting this coming Monday… but am voicing
concern particularly on the request for variance for hard cover on the proposed remodel project. History has shown
potential issues with water run off and significant damage to property that can occur. In The last few years…
several lake properties have had lakeside landscaping structures fail….costly to the health of the lake and the
owners.
> As well, my property and others are “downhill” from the proposed project at 2815… and likely recipients of
excessive run off if hardcover variances continue to be granted.
>
> It appears the neighborhood will have many “projects” coming down the pike with turnover of properties…I hope
the planning commission and home owners can be mindful of the land use rules that are in place in the lake
communities.
>
> Margaret martin… 2821 Casco
> Sent from my iPad
From:T
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2815 Casco point road, Orono, MN. 55391Date:Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:07:08 PM
Hello Melanie,
Based on the condition of the house and garage at this location, it would seem that both buildings need to be demolished and replaced with new construction.
It appears the focus of the proposed building project is on a larger, new garage with living space above.
Adding a sun deck to this existing house in addition to some cosmetics updates doesn’t seem appropriate or in line with other projects in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Theresa Norsted2811 Casco Point Road952/210-2310
Sent from my iPad
Melanie Curtis September 15, 2022
Planner - City Of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Charles and Carol Price
2813 Casco Point Rd
Wayzata, MN 55391
Regarding:
Proposed House Drawings for Thostensen Residence at 2015 Casco Point Rd.,
VARIANCE SET, Dated 8/17/2022, Sheets 1-15.
Certificate of Survey for Lisa Thostenson, dated 5/18/2022
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 8/15/2022
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet -Alternate, dated 8/15/2022
Practical Difficulties Analysis, Updated-August 16, 2022
Variance Application Narrative, Updated August 16, 2022
Dear Ms. Curtis,
We have reviewed the documents listed above and we hereby provide this assessment.
House Modifications
We hereby request that no new encroachments are permitted on the west side of the subject
propert y in which the existing house is currently into the 7.5 feet side set back requirement. It
appears that the kitchen bay window has been enlarged with a corresponding larger roof
overhang than currently exists. Additionally, it appears that the roof overhang has been
enlarged over the side bump out that is structurally part of the existing house footprint. We
are opposed to the proposed new gable roof over the existing house that encroaches further
into the 7.5 feet side setback. We request that any proposed new roof line will not encroach
any further into the 7.5 foot side setback. The side setback rules allow for light, air, and open
space between adjacent homes that is necessary for the enjoyment and safety of our property.
New Lakeside Deck
The proposed deck on the lake side of the house will create a severe hardship for us and our
propert y. Instead of our current unimpeded lake view, our view will be blocked by this
elevated deck, and everything placed on it which the applicants describe as an "outdoor living
space/deck". There are many reasons why this deck should not be approved: it is illegal per
the city building codes, setback requirements, and lakeshore hardcover requirements, and it
does not fit into the well-established ambiance of the neighborhood. The deck and the things
on it would block our view of the lake for a large portion of our view, it would destroy the
quiet enjoyment of our home and yard, and the lights and glare would be irritating inside our
home. It can be assumed that such an "outdoor living space/deck" would be equipped with
sofas, chairs, tables, grills, lights, sound, umbrellas, etc. This large outdoor living space may
lead to loud noise from the large number of people this deck can accommodate. Even worse,
any people on the deck will be able to look directly into our living room which has a wall of
glass facing the lake and a large window facing across the applicants' yard to the lake view.
This deck and everything on it will be constantly in our view and will obscure our lake view.
It can also be foreseen that there will be lighting added to this deck which will create light and
glare directly into our living room through our wall of glass on our lakeside windows and our
side windows that face this propert y. We and our neighbors have always enjoyed and valued
the quiet enjoyment of our lakeside properties and yards without irritating sound or glaring
light, but this proposed "outdoor living space/deck" will destroy said quiet enjoyment by day
and quiet dark skies by night.
It is clear that this proposed deck solves no "hardship" for the applicants, but it creates a huge
hardship for us and our neighbors. We love our house and the environment here at our Orono
lakeside property. We don't want to leave our home, but the thought of living with this illegal
"outdoor living space/deck" is unfathomable compared to our current backyard ambiance.
We generally keep our windows open most all summer long and we don't want to hear our
neighbor's sound system, or a deck full of loud partiers. This property already has a
substantial patio that has served previous owners well…..there is no hardship that requires any
expansion of the existing outdoor living space. Approving this "outdoor living space/deck"
will adversely affect our comfort, safety and health. There is no demonstrable difficulty that
makes this deck variance necessary nor should this deck be allowed to violate the hardcover
and lake shore setback rules. The applicants' wish for this deck is clearl y just a convenience
for the applicants. The conditions on this lot are not at all unusual in a hilly topography that
was laid out and developed long ago. The plight of the landowner is directly caused by their
wish for a deck in a prohibited area, having nothing to do with the circumstances of the
propert y or any practical difficulties. Any variance for a deck would make a major change to
the locality, and such decks have consistently not been allowed in the past. Several years ago,
we attempted to have our detached garage attached to our house but after the design phase and
surveys, we were told by the City of Orono to "come back and talk to us when your plans
include getting your hard cover down to 25%." Our next door neighbor had the same
experience. Properties nearby have had such decks refused and no homes nearby have such
decks. Approving this variance would be groundbreaking in this locality.
We have noticed that the proposed deck drawings do not show any stairway from the deck to
the ground level for access to the back yard and lake. If a deck stairway is added, the most
likely place would be close to our propert y since the deck is above the grade the least, and the
stairs would further impede our lake view. This stairway is not included in the hardcover
calculations.
We hereby ask the City of Orono to deny the average lakeshore setback and hardcover
variances for this proposed deck.
New Garage Addition
While we understand a 3-car garage is desirable over a 2-car garage, we do not believe the 3-
car garage on such a small width lot conforms to the character of the neighborhood. The
house view from the street is essentially a three-car garage. We request that a variance shall
only be granted if the overall proposed garage, house plans, and deck plans strictly meet and
adhere to all city codes, structural coverage and massing standards, the hardcover
requirements, and the side setback requirements.
Regarding the narrative dated August 16, 2022
The minimum existing side setback to our property is 4.8', not 6.9' as stated.
Several comments that a wire rope or glass panels will "further help preserve views" is not
applicable considering the large scale of this deck, all the supporting structures, side supports,
and deck elevation from ground level. The deck will spoil our view along with all of the
furniture, grills, fire pit tables, umbrellas and people on the deck that will be only 22 feet from
our lakeside windows and directly between us and our view of Lake Minnetonka.
The hardcover calculations spreadsheet dated 8-15-2022 indicates that the "wood landscape
border" will be removed; however this is a retaining border wall that is necessary due to the 5'
elevation difference between our two lots. These wooden timbers straddle the property line
and the survey spikes are placed in the center of these timbers. The wood border is only half
on the 2815 property, so there would only be a minimal hardcover reduction if these timbers
were removed. We would find it acceptable for the subject property owners to replace the
wood landscape border/timber retaining wall with something more aesthetically pleasing to
them, so long as it continues to perform the needed retaining wall function and we approve
the plan in writing before work on this border starts. However, taking credit for a hardcover
reduction is not applicable in this case.
The building codes and hardcover requirements have been put in place for the safety and well
being of all citizens in Orono, as well as for the health and preservation of the surrounding
land and Lake Minnetonka. We request that the Orono Planners and City Council maintain
the ethics and adherence to existing laws and codes and reject the variances requested by the
applicant. We would appreciate if the Planners and City Council stand firm and require that
the new homeowner provide plans for house modifications that adhere to all city codes,
structural coverage and massing standards, the hardcover requirements, and the side setback
requirements.
Sincerely,
Charles Price
Carol Price
From:Penny Saiki
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:2815 Casco Point Road
Date:Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:42:24 AM
Hi, Melanie,
I was able to see the plans for the redesign. These comments are submitted as a heads up to
save drainage problems at this house as well as to the other houses,
I noticed that the water management of the roof drainage needs detailing because of the
existing boulder retaining wall indicating a drop to the land around 2817, the lower level
entrance at this house, the drainage of 2813 towards 2815 and the slope of the land across the
property as well as towards the lake.
CONSIDERATIONS
The side setbacks are narrow.
The boulder retaining wall of 2815 is retaining the land of 2815 against a drop to the land
along the entire side of 2817.
The existing drainage of 2813 is straight away towards 2815, and the timbers are proposed to
be removed.
Now that the roof is a gable, the roof drainage is towards both sides of the house towards the
neighboring properties.
The roof overhangs are not dimensioned, but they look to be about 2 ft.
There are no gutters indicated, but they would add another 4", so the setback overhead will
extend over the foundation setbacks and be about 3.9-5.9 ft towards the property line at 2813,
and 8.2 ft towards the property line at 2817.
The downspouts will probably be 6”, so considerable water will be entering the land
someplace along the foundation and then exiting extensions whether between the houses and
to the street side on the 2813 side and to the back on the 2817 side to avoid loading the
retaining wall protecting 2817.
There is very little space on 2815 to manage downspout water with grading towards 2813, but
grade needs to slope away from 2815 and yet meet the existing grade between the houses,
Suggest locating the downspouts now in design, and do the contour and grading design to
manage the water from the downspouts with consideration to the 2815 walkout level and the
areas between the houses. Ordinance typically requires matching the existing contour lines at
the property lines.
Penny Saiki
psaiki@icloud.com